coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Kharkiv.
5.  On 11 April 2000 the Kyiv District Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant, along with two other persons, on suspicion of tax evasion and forgery in their capacity of a private company’s officials.
6.  On 24 April 2000 the applicant was indicted.
7.  Between 30 May 2000 and 30 June 2004 the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Kyivskyy Court”) considered the case.
8.  According to the information provided by the Government, in the course of proceedings the hearings were adjourned twelve times because the presiding judge was busy with another case and seven times at the request of the other co-defendants’ lawyers. In addition, there were five adjournments as the applicant or her lawyer was absent. Finally, hearings did not take place four times because the prosecutor was absent and three times owing to the absence of the witnesses. According to the applicant, however, the judge failed to duly notify the parties of the scheduled hearings on many occasions. Some of the adjournments, according to her, were caused by the judge’s inability to ensure the audio-recording of hearings requested by the applicant.
9.  Meanwhile, the applicant lodged numerous complaints with the higher-level courts about the length of the proceedings. As indicated in the reply of the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal to one of her complaints, audio-recording equipment was available only in the appellate court and the first-instance court had therefore to adjust the schedule of hearings accordingly.
10.  On 30 June 2004 the Kyivskyy Court, at the prosecutor’s petition and in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer, terminated the proceedings against the applicant as time-barred.
11.  On 8 July 2004 this ruling became final.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Ptuj.
5.  In the beginning of the 1990s the applicant company entered a business relationship with the company JEKLOTEHNA D.D, which was a company owned by the State. In 1996 bankruptcy proceedings were instituted against the latter.
6.  On 16 September 1997 the applicant company instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court against the Republic of Slovenia seeking the payment of the debt owed by JEKLOTEHNA D.D.
7.  On 14 July 1999 the court held a hearing.
8.  On 6 October 1999 the Ljubljana District Court issued a judgment rejecting the applicant company’s request. The applicant company appealed.
9.  On 17 December 2002 the Ljubljana District Court issued a decision stating that the appeal was considered to be withdrawn, since the applicant company failed to pay the court fees for the appeal. The applicant company appealed.
10.  On 9 June 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeal and annulled the decision. Subsequently, the appeal against the first-instance judgment was allowed.
11.  On 15 June 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the applicant company’s appeal. The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law.
12.  On 2 December 2005 the Ljubljana District Court rejected the appeal on points of law on procedural grounds. The applicant company appealed.
13.  On 11 January 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeal. Subsequently the appeal on points of law was accepted and sent to the Supreme Court.
14.  On 9 October 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Silistra.
5.  On 3 September 1997 the applicant was charged with fraud.
6.  Between 3 September and 12 December 1997 he was in custody.
7.  On 27 March 2000 the Silistra Regional Court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
8.  On 12 October 2000 the Varna Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and remitted the case for further investigation.
9.  On 31 October 2002 the prosecuting authorities terminated the proceedings as it had not been established that the applicant had committed a criminal offence.
10.  On 4 December 2002 the applicant brought an action for damages under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (“the SMRDA”). He initially sought 60,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN), later reduced to BGN 40,000 (equivalent to 20,450 euros (EUR)), in non‑pecuniary damages stemming from his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him.
11.  On 27 October 2003 the Dobrich Regional Court found that compensation was due under section 2(2) SMRDA as it had not been established that the applicant had committed a criminal offence. It awarded the applicant BGN 6,000 (EUR 3,067) in non-pecuniary damages.
12.  On 6 April 2004 the Varna Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.
13.  In a final judgment of 28 October 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation increased the amount of damages awarded to BGN 9,000 (EUR 4,601).
14.  The courts further applied section 10 § 2 of the SMRDA and ordered the applicant to pay in total BGN 2,480 (EUR 1,268) in court fees, which represented 4% of the dismissed part of his claim.
4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Bakhchysaray.
5.  On 7 March 2001 the Kyivskyy District Prosecutor of Simferopol opened a criminal case in respect of the applicant on suspicion of embezzlement while at the post of a shop manager. Criminal proceedings on similar charges were also instituted against the shop director, Mr Z.
6.  Between 30 May and 9 August 2001 the investigation was stayed owing to the authorities’ failure to establish the applicant’s whereabouts. He was placed on a wanted list.
7.  On 13 August 2001 the applicant was apprehended.
8.  On 23 August 2001 the Kyivskyy District Court of Sevastopol (“the Kyivskyy Court”) remanded him in custody pending trial.
9.  On 29 August 2001 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the aforementioned ruling and released the applicant under an obligation not to leave the town.
10.  On 13 November 2001 the applicant, as well as Mr. Z., was indicted as charged and the case was referred to the Kyivskyy Court for trial.
11.  On 3 December 2001 the Kyivskyy Court started the trial. Overall, it held nine hearings. There were five adjournments for a total of about five months at the applicant’s request or because of his absence. Another adjournment for about five months was caused by the judge’s absence. The examination of the case was delayed for about a year following the court’s order of a repeated forensic accounting evaluation at the prosecutor’s request.
12.  On 14 February 2005 the Kyivskyy Court, at a prosecutor’s request, remitted the case for additional investigation.
13.  On 5 April 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld that ruling.
14.  After April 2005 the investigation was stayed on three occasions (for eight months, for one year and three months, and for about a year, respectively) as the whereabouts of the applicant and Mr. Z. were not known. All the respective rulings of the investigator were however quashed by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as unfounded and new investigators were assigned to deal with the case.
15.  Meanwhile, according to the applicant, he enquired about the investigation progress several times, also requesting disciplinary action to be taken against the prosecutors and investigators concerned.
16.  By a letter of 18 February 2011 the Crimea Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant, in reply to his enquiry of 18 January 2011, that the criminal proceedings against him and Mr. Z. had been terminated on 27 December 2010 for the lack of corpus delicti in their actions.
4.  The applicants were born in 1949, 1951, 1961, 1933 and 1977, respectively and live in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
5.  By five judgments of different courts of first instance of 25 April 2002, 23 September 2005, 7 October 2002, 8 September 2003 and 24 December 2002, which became final respectively on 9 March 2005, 23 September 2005, 12 July 2005, 6 April 2005 and 24 January 2006, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in convertible marks (BAM)[1]:
(i) BAM 26,994.86 in respect of capitalised annuity to Mr Milan Momić;
  (ii) BAM 87,479.19 in respect of pecuniary damage for lost income to Mr Živan Anđić;
  (iii) BAM 2,235 in respect of pecuniary damage together with default interest at the statutory rate calculated from the start of the proceedings until the final payment and BAM 4,586 in respect of legal costs to Ms Ismihana Kalem;
  (iv) BAM 7,525 in respect of pecuniary damage together with default interest at the statutory rate calculated from the start of the proceedings until the final payment and BAM 1,400 in respect of legal costs to Mr Hašim Delić; and
  (v) BAM 11,500 in resepct of non-pecuniary damage together with default interest at the statutory rate calculated from the start of the proceedings until the final payment and BAM 1,425.90 in respect of legal costs to  Mr Marinko Tomčić.
6.  The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 4 July 2005, 12 December 2005, 17 October 2005, 3 October 2005 and 27 April 2006.
7.  The applicants complained of non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”). On 12 April 2006, 14 March 2006, 9 May 2006 and 13 December 2007 the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the cases of Mr Milan Momić, Mr Živan Anđić, Ms Ismihana Kalem and Mr Hašim Delić. The applicants did not claim compensation, but even if they had done so, their claim would have most likely been refused (see, for example, the Constitutional Court’s decisions AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, § 438; AP 557/05 of 12 April 2006, § 195; AP 1211/06 of 13 December 2007, § 79; and AP 244/08 of 8 December 2010, § 37). On 24 June 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the case of Mr Marinko Tomčić due to the change of circumstances following amendments to the Domestic Debt Act 2004.
8.  On 22 December 2008 Mr MarinkoTomčić was issued government bonds in lieu of cash in respect of the principal debt and associated default interest accrued until 23 July 2004 in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Domestic Debt Act 2004 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).
9.  On 22 December 2011 the final judgment in respect of Mr Hašim Delić was fully enforced in cash and in March 2012 the final judgments in favour of Mr Milan Momić and Mr Živan Anđić were also fully enforced in cash.
10.  The final judgment in favour of Ms Ismihana Kalem remains unenforced to this day.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Tirana.
5.  Further to the applicant’s dismissal in 2003, on 19 January 2004 the Tirana District Court ordered his employer, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Energy (“the Ministry”), to pay his salary throughout the period he remained unemployed. That decision became final on 2 February 2007, following the Supreme Court’s rejection of the employer’s appeal.
6.  On 10 February 2005 an enforcement writ was issued.
7.  From 1 January 2006 to 31 January 2007 the applicant was regularly paid monthly salaries as a result of the inclusion of his name on the employer’s waiting lists, no salaries having been paid for the period between 2003 and 2006.
8.  On 2 February 2009 the bailiff decided to discontinue the enforcement on the grounds that the outstanding amount had been paid. The applicant challenged the bailiff’s decision.
9.  On 30 April 2010 the Tirana District Court found in the applicant’s favour and ordered the bailiff to continue the enforcement proceedings. It ruled that the employer had paid the applicant the sum of 2,065,101 Albanian leks (“ALL”) out of a total of ALL 2,887,500 due to him for the period between 2003 and 2006.
10.  On 30 June 2011, following the bailiff’s appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
11.  On 18 January 2012 the Ministry ordered the payment of the outstanding amount.
12.  On 8 March 2012 the applicant’s debt judgment was fully enforced.
5.  The applicants live in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6.  By four judgments of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 22 July 1999, 29 January 2002 (application no. 12453/10), 29 January 2002 (application no. 17809/10) and 31 October 2002, which became final on 5 January 2001, 12 January 2005, 22 November 2004 and 26 January 2005, respectively, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate:
(i)  BAM 26,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the Ignjatićs;
(ii)  BAM 42,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,998 in respect of legal costs to the Škorićs;
(iii)  BAM 47,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the Marićs;
(iv)  BAM 29,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the Ostojićs.
7.  The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 20 April 2001, 8 September 2003, 19 April 2005, 14 April 2005 and 5 April 2006, respectively.
8.  The applicants complained of non-enforcement to the Human Rights Chamber or to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 8 March 2006 the Human Rights Commission (the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber) found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of the Ignjatićs. On 20 December 2005 the Constitutional Court ruled likewise in the case of the Škorićs and the Marićs. The applicants did not claim compensation, but even if they had done so, their claim would have most likely been refused (see, for example, the Constitutional Court’s decisions AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, § 438; AP 557/05 of 12 April 2006, § 195; AP 1211/06 of 13 December 2007, § 79; and AP 244/08 of 8 December 2010, § 37).On 15 April 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the case of the Ostojićs due to the change of circumstances following amendments to the Domestic Debt Act 2004.
9.  On 16 June 2010, 26 November 2009 and 14 October 2009, respectively, the Banja Luka Court of First Instance accepted the debtor’s appeals in the cases of the Škorićs, the Marićs and the Ostojićs and altered its previous writs of executions: it ordered that only the legal costs were to be paid in cash, while the principal debt and default interest were to be paid in government bonds.
10.  It would appear that legal costs were paid to the Škorićs and the Marićs.
5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Tampere.
6.  The applicant was born out of wedlock. In 1961 the District Court, after having heard witnesses on the relationship between the applicant’s mother and K.R., ordered K.R. to pay child support to the applicant. K.R. had also told the applicant and his mother that he was in fact the father of the applicant.
7.  On 1 October 1976 the Paternity Act (isyyslaki, lagen om faderskap) came into force. The transitional provisions in the Implementing Act of the Paternity Act (laki isyyslain toimeenpanosta, lagen angående införande av lagen om faderskap) state that paternity proceedings with regard to a child born before the entry into force of the law had to be initiated within five years, that is, before 1 October 1981. Moreover, no claim could be examined after the death of the father. No such restrictions exist for children born after the entry into force of the Paternity Act.
8.  K.R. died in August 1999. Subsequently, the applicant found out that K.R. had not been legally registered as his father.
9.  On 15 May 2003 the applicant initiated paternity proceedings against the heirs of K.R. in the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). He requested the court to confirm that K.R. was his father. He referred, inter alia, to the Convention.
10.  On 22 August 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that as the applicant was born before the entry into force of the Paternity Act, he should have brought the claim within the statutory five-year time-limit and at the latest on 1 October 1981. Making a reference to the Convention did not change the fact that the applicant had lost his right to initiate the proceedings on 1 October 1981. His claim was therefore time-barred.
11.  On 27 August 2003 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) claiming, inter alia, that the District Court could not just ignore the Convention as it was to be given priority vis-à-vis the national legislation. Moreover, nowadays it was possible to obtain conclusive evidence, through DNA tests, to establish paternity. Section 7, subsection 2, of the Implementing Act of the Paternity Act had in fact become obsolete, a provision that had lost its acceptability and applicability.
12.  On 19 May 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision. It found, in addition to the District Court’s reasoning, that no legal impediment had prevented the applicant from initiating the proceedings within the five-year time-limit and that this time-limit was unconditional.
13.  On 27 May 2004 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), reiterating the grounds for appeal already presented before the Court of Appeal.
14.  On 4 February 2005 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Albania.
5.  Further to the applicant’s dismissal, on 19 January 2007 the Civil Service Commission (“CSC”) ordered his employer, the Prime Minister’s Office, to reinstate him. No award of salary arrears was made.
6.  On 14 December 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the employer’s appeal and the CSC decision became final.
7.  On 27 February 2008 an enforcement writ was issued.
8.  On 28 March 2008 an appointment order was issued by the Department of Public Administration. However, the applicant was prevented by his employer from taking up his functions.
9.  On 12 April, 28 May and 15 July 2008 the applicant unsuccessfully requested his employer to comply with the appointment order.
10.  On 15 May and 25 June 2006 the People’s Advocate Office (“Ombudsperson”) unsuccessfully requested information from the applicant’s employer about compliance with the appointment order.
11.  On 12 February 2010 the Ombudsperson recommended the applicant’s employer to comply with the appointment order.
12.  On 20 April 2010 the applicant tendered his resignation.
13.  On an unspecified date in 2009, having regard to the fact that the applicant had not been able to resume his work, he sought the payment of salary arrears before the domestic court.
14.  By final decision of 2 July 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision declaring the case outside its jurisdiction, on the grounds that the action should have been lodged with the CSC.
15.  On 10 March 2010, following the applicant’s request, the CSC accepted his claim. It ordered his employer to pay the applicant’s salary arrears starting from 28 March 2008.
16.  It would appear that in March 2010 the applicant was paid the salary arrears in respect of the period between 28 March 2008 and 20 April 2010, the date on which he resigned.
4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Sztum.
5.  On 7 May 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of homicide and robbery.
6.  On 9 May 1998 the Gdynia District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody.
7.  On 31 July 2000 the bill of indictment was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The applicant and seven other persons were indicted with homicide, several counts of robbery and various other offences committed in an organised criminal group.
8.  The trial began on 14 December 2000. Between 14 December 2000 and 22 July 2003 the trial court held 64 hearings.
9.  On 29 July 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
10.  On 16 December 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed this judgment and remitted the case.
11.  On 25 August 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court severed the charges against the applicant into two separate sets of the proceedings.
12.  In the first set of the proceedings, the Gdańsk Regional Court again convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment on 24 August 2007. The applicant appealed. This judgment was upheld on 19 November 2008 by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal.
13.  In the second set of proceedings, on 15 April 2008 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave judgment and sentenced the applicant to 10 years’ imprisonment. The proceedings were terminated by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 5 January 2009.
14.  On 21 November 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gdańsk Court of Appeal under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Gdańsk Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).
15.  On 28 December 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s motion. The court stressed in particular that the proceedings were very complicated and there was a need to obtain evidence from numerous witnesses.
5.  The applicants are all Hungarian nationals who live in Budapest (for details, see Annex).
6.  In December 1985 the brother of three applicants (Ms Klára Zsolnay, Mr István Zsolnay and Mr György Zsolnay) brought an action against his siblings before the Pest Central District Court, requesting the court to establish his ownership on a real estate. In 1986, the respondents submitted a counter-claim against the plaintiff.
7.  On 26 September 1990 the District Court gave interlocutory judgment, establishing that the plaintiff had acquired ownership of part of the property. On 10 March 1992 the Budapest Regional Court suspended the proceedings, pending the adjudication of the counter-claims submitted by the respondents.
8.  In the resumed proceedings the District Court delivered an interlocutory judgment concerning the ownership proportions on 21 November 1996. On appeal, the Regional Court suspended the proceedings, pending the adjudication of the counter-claims, on 8 May 1997.
9.  The applicants’ counter-claims were dismissed by the District Court on 11 December 1997. This judgment was partly reversed on appeal on 29 September 1998. The Supreme Court upheld the first-instance decision while remitting some claims on 3 November 1999.
10.  On 29 June 2000 the fourth applicant, Mrs István Zsolnay joined the proceedings on the respondents’ side.
11.  On 23 January 2001 the applicants’ motion for the disqualification of a judge was dismissed.
12.  On 14 May 2003 the District Court gave a partial judgment. This was reversed in part on appeal on 19 January 2005 and upheld by the Supreme Court on 17 February 2006.
13.  Regarding the remainder of the claims, the District Court found partly for the applicants on 7 July 2006. The Budapest Regional dismissed the respondents’ counter-claim on 27 April 2007.